BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING
Senator Jim Beall, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 2796 Hearing Date: 6/28/2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Bloom |
|----------+------------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |4/4/2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant|Erin Riches |
|: | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Active Transportation Program
DIGEST: This bill establishes a permanent set-aside in the
Active Transportation Program (ATP) for planning and
non-infrastructure projects.
ANALYSIS:
The ATP was established under the state Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) pursuant to the 2013-14 budget
agreement. The ATP consolidated part or all of several existing
programs and accounts, including the state Bicycle
Transportation Account, the state and federal Safe Routes to
Schools (SRTS) programs, the federal Transportation Alternatives
Program, and the state Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation
Program. These programs and accounts totaled approximately $130
million per year. The budget agreement directed funds to be
awarded by the California Transportation Commission (CTC)
through a competitive process to urban regions (40%), small
urban and rural regions (10%), and statewide (50%).
The budget agreement directed the CTC to develop program
guidelines in consultation with a designated ATP working group.
It directed that a minimum of 25% of overall ATP funds must
benefit disadvantaged communities (DACs). It also guaranteed
SRTS at least $24 million per year, for three years; of this
amount, a minimum of $7.2 million was to be available for
non-infrastructure program needs, including the continuation of
technical assistance by the state.
AB 2796 (Bloom) Page 2 of ?
The 2017 ATP guidelines adopted by the CTC earlier this year
cover fiscal years 2019-20 and 2020-21; projects will be adopted
early next year. The 2017 guidelines set aside a maximum of 2%
of funds in the statewide component, and in the small urban and
rural component, for active transportation plans in DACs. A
large metropolitan planning organization may set aside up to 2%
of its funding for active transportation plans in DACs.
This bill:
1)Requires, for each category (urban, small urban and rural, and
statewide), at least 5% of funds to be awarded for planning
and community engagement for active transportation in DACs.
2)Requires, for each category, at least 10% of funds to be
programmed for non-infrastructure activities, including
activities related to SRTS. If a project includes both
infrastructure and non-infrastructure components, only the
portion used for non-infrastructure shall count toward the
10%.
3)Requires that if applications submitted in a funding cycle are
not sufficient to exceed the minimum percentages required, the
applicable funds may be spent for other authorized purposes.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. The author states that this bill aims to address the
competitive disadvantage of planning and non-infrastructure
projects in the ATP grant process, which has discouraged
under-resourced jurisdictions from applying for these grants.
This bill seeks to create a funding ratio that more accurately
reflects the proportion of applications for planning and
non-infrastructure projects relative to infrastructure
projects. Specifically, the author states that this bill
enables planning and non-infrastructure projects to compete
fairly in ATP by designating a set-aside for them.
2)Background. This committee was closely involved in the
negotiations to establish the ATP in the 2013-14 budget
agreement. The working group conducted extensive discussions
about how large a set-aside to create for SRTS and for
planning and non-infrastructure projects. The compromise
eventually reached was to set aside a minimum of $24 million
AB 2796 (Bloom) Page 3 of ?
for SRTS for three years, with a set-aside within SRTS of at
least $7.2 million for non-infrastructure program needs. This
bill establishes a permanent set-aside of 15% in each of the
three categories, of which 10% is allocated to
non-infrastructure activities (including SRTS) and 5% is
allocated to planning activities.
3)Where are we now? The author states that the CTC and Caltrans
have put particular emphasis in the first two grant cycles on
funding infrastructure grants, and that non-infrastructure and
planning proposals have struggled to compete. The author
states that in the first grant cycle, roughly 8% of overall
funding went to planning and non-infrastructure grants, while
in the second cycle, less than 5% of program funds went to
grants of this type. The author states that planning is a
huge need for active transportation, particularly in
low-resourced communities. According to the author,
non-infrastructure activities are critical to engage and
excite residents to walk and bike more, as car-free street
events like CicLAvia and programs like SRTS have demonstrated.
However, the most recent guidelines adopted by the CTC reduce
the non-infrastructure set-aside to 2%.
4)What are planning and non-infrastructure activities? Planning
funds assist communities to, for example, create a local
bicycle or pedestrian plan, while non-infrastructure
activities often comprise a component of an infrastructure
project. One of the larger solely non-infrastructure
allocations in the 2015 funding cycle was for $966,000 in
2016-17 to the San Mateo County Office of Sustainability for
its Sustainable Transportation Encouragement Project (STEP).
According to the application, STEP will be implemented by a
partnership between the office and Redwood City 2020, a
community collaborative which includes Redwood City School
District. The application states a need for outside grant
funding due to a 40% cut in funding to the SRTS program, which
is forcing them to cut back "education and encouragement
services."
5)A big piece of a small pot. The ATP is funded at
approximately $120 million per year and programmed in
four-year cycles. The bulk of program funding comes from the
federal FAST Act. The ATP is extremely popular; in the second
cycle, awarded in 2015, more than 600 applications were
submitted, requesting over $1 billion in funds. Approximately
AB 2796 (Bloom) Page 4 of ?
200 projects were awarded a total of $359 million. With
demand exceeding supply by so great an amount, the question
arises of whether a smaller set-aside might help focus limited
funds on infrastructure projects.
6)Making planning a priority. Writing in support of this bill,
a coalition of bicycle and pedestrian organizations state
that, "The vast majority of communities across the state lack
walk, bike, or active transportation master plans, and rely on
grants from the ATP to develop plans that help them identify
and build community support for future projects." According
to the Office of Planning and Research's 2013-14 Annual
Planning Survey Results, less than 50% of responding cities
and counties reported having adopted a Bicycle Master Plan and
only about 13% of respondents reported a Pedestrian Master
Plan. This dearth of master plans raises the question of
whether a larger set-aside for planning may be appropriate.
7)Opposition arguments. The CTC has taken an "oppose unless
amended" position on this bill. The CTC writes that "while
the Commission acknowledges the value in non-infrastructure
active transportation projects, particularly those that are
combined with infrastructure projects, it has had difficulty
implementing grants awarded for those purposes." The CTC
states that statutory funding and program requirements and
restrictions have led to frustration and time-consuming
disputes between Caltrans and applicants regarding
non-infrastructure projects. The CTC notes, however, that
this difficulty might be mitigated through clearer legislative
guidance on the types of non-infrastructure guidance eligible
for ATP funds.
8)Amendments. To address some of the concerns outlined in the
comments above, the author will accept the following
amendments in committee:
a) Add legislative intent language relating to the goals of
the ATP.
b) Specify that planning and construction of walking and
biking infrastructure and implementation of
behavioral-change strategies are part of the mission of the
ATP.
c) Revise the planning and non-infrastructure set-aside to
AB 2796 (Bloom) Page 5 of ?
comprise 10% of total available ATP funds. Of the
set-aside, at least 50% must be designated for planning
activities to develop comprehensive active transportation
master plans, including for community engagement activities
to engage residents in relation to these plans. Funding
programmed for the ATP Resource Center at Caltrans shall
not count toward the 10%.
d) Allow an applicant to seek CTC approval of a letter of
no prejudice allowing the applicant to spend its own funds
for a project programmed in a future year and to be
reimbursed later by the CTC.
e) More clearly define non-infrastructure activities.
Related Legislation:
SB 99 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 359,
Statutes of 2013) and AB 101 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal
Review, Chapter 354, Statues of 2013) - created and funded the
ATP.
Assembly Votes:
Floor: 78-1
Appr: 20-0
Trans: 16-0
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on
Wednesday,
June 22, 2016.)
SUPPORT:
California Bicycle Coalition (co-sponsor)
California Walks (co-sponsor)
Safe Routes to School National Partnership (co-sponsor)
American Heart Association/American Stroke Association
American Lung Association in California
Amigos de los Rios
Bike East Bay
Bike Santa Cruz County
AB 2796 (Bloom) Page 6 of ?
Bike SLO County
Breathe California
California League of Conservation Voters
California Pan-Ethnic Health Network
California ReLeaf
Catholic Charities, Diocese of Stockton
Center for Climate Change and Health
Chico Velo
Coalition for Clean Air
Comite Civico del Valle
County Health Executives Association of California
Gamaliel of California
Health Officers Association of California
Inland Empire Biking Alliance
Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability
Livable Communities, Inc.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition
Marin County Bicycle Coalition
Move LA
Napa County Bicycle Coalition
PolicyLink
Public Advocates, Inc.
Rails-to-Trails Conservancy
San Diego County Bicycle Coalition
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
Santa Barbara Bicycle Coalition
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition
The Environmental Council of Sacramento
Trust for Public Land
Walk San Francisco
OPPOSITION:
California Transportation Commission
-- END --